Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: devlkore on 21 March 2003, 02:24
-
Howdy people,
I was wondering what all of you political views were, since most, if not all of you believe in free software, which seems like a very anti or non-capitalist thing to believe.
Also, I'm generally interested in politics on a personal level.
So, what are you political views and ideals, etc.
BYEEEEE!!
-
heh...what a time to ask about what everyone's political view are. i've been battling over my view on these forums for about a week now.
i am a capitialist, strange that in open source software though (GO Linux!). i'm a conservative (will be republican when i turn 18, if you care about US politics). basically, i am:
pro-gun
pro-life (against abortion, if you don't know)
i hate the recent stream of idiotic lawsuits
i'm pro-iraq war
i hate the french--this is a recent occurance
i hate liberals, for the most part
i hate clinton and his sidekick gore
i support president bush
anything else?
-
Yes, you forgot to say you're pro-death-penalty (despite your supposedly being "pro-life").
-
yes, forgive me
i am pro-capital punishment/pro-death-penalty, whichever you perfer
i believe that people who:
a) mass murder
b) rape/kill children
c) terrorists (i guess that'd go w/ a, though)
d) stupid people (but this won't happen...our populations would become too small)
should suffer death rather then spend the rest of their worthless lives in prison (or in society--for d.). why would i want the government to use my tax dollars to let these people live relitively well (they are better off then the homeless) for the rest of their miserable existence? i'm a christian, so i should beleive in forgiveness, believing that these people can repent/actually be sorry for what they did. but they are not worth the risk of letting back into society, and they are not worth the air they breath.
(btw: j/k about the executing stupid ppl (http://smile.gif) )
-
So you're not pro-life, basically.
I agree that certain types of stupidity should be punishable by death, but then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
quote:
i'm a christian
At this point my eyes glaze over and I see the futility of trying to reason with the right-winger.
-
oh really? cool. maybe the fact that i'm Catholic will prevent morons from debating with me then (http://smile.gif)
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: Siplus: *Capitalist* ]
-
Well, this is getting interesting.
-
Me?
I'm a socialist. I've written a lot about this in other posts, so I won't go into detail. I think the philosopy of the free software movement could and should be extended to the rest of society. People who agree with the FSF are really socialists themselves who don't wish to apply the same thinking to other areas of life.
I'm an atheist. And no I dont hate religion, being an atheist means I can fully appreciate *all* the religions of the world and the mythologies behind them, not just one particular religion. I'm fascinated by all the stories and legends people have created throughout history to try to explain the universe around them. I'd also never look down on a religious person unless they told me I was going to hell or something. That pisses me off.
I'm an independent in terms of political orientation, though I tend more towards "liberal" politics sometimes than "conservative" ones.
I hate lawyers for the most part and frivilous lawsuits, yet at the same time realize that they're often the only way for citizens to protect themselves from big corporations and their abusive behavior.
I think George Bush is a tool and is a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam is.
-
i agree with LinuxUser. But i am not an atheist. i believe in something. but i will not debate religion here. i cant even debate with my freinds (who are mostly christian fanatics, soldiers if you will (http://smile.gif) ) in a civilized manner.
-
I'm socialist.
-
quote:
who are mostly christian fanatics, soldiers if you will
To quote Bill Clinton, I feel your pain!
I grew up in hickville and there are people there who stand outside Chevron with big signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS" and "INFIDELS BURN IN HELL" It's totally sickening. Most of my friends totally misunderstood me when I said I didn't believe in god; they thought I was evil, or that I worshiped devils, or something.
-
quote:
i hate the french--this is a recent occurance
Wow, you hate an entire country of people? All of them? Even the women and children?
A note, the US probably wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for the help they received from the French during the Revolutionary War.
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
To quote Bill Clinton, I feel your pain!
I grew up in hickville and there are people there who stand outside Chevron with big signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS" and "INFIDELS BURN IN HELL" It's totally sickening. Most of my friends totally misunderstood me when I said I didn't believe in god; they thought I was evil, or that I worshiped devils, or something.
yeah. how can you worship devils if you don't believe in god?? one cannot exist without the other. so i am not going to hell or heaven. they might, but im not because i do not believe in it. thats what trips my freinds up. does the bible even say "God hates fags"? i doubt it. even if it does, it was written by men. might as well make Dr Suess my savior and worship his stories. ill call it "Suessinsanity"
oh yeah, i do not hate the French. and im not calling my fries "Freedom Fries". that is jut silly & immature.
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: ecsyle_one ]
-
quote:
does the bible even say "God hates fags"? i doubt it. even if it does, it was written by men. might as well make Dr Suess my savior and worship his stories. ill call it "Suessinsanity"
There's a passage in Leviticus I think (or Exodus) that says "whoever lies down with a man as he does with a woman shall surely be put to death" or something like that. You're right about the Dr. Suess business though. Actually I think his books contain more insight than the Bible and everything in it. ;) Just read "The Butter-Battle Book" for instance.
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
Have you seen the hardees or some fast food restaurant, where they call french cowards, and they surrendered every war? well we wouldn't have won the american revolutionary war, if the french didn't support us. And they might have won the french revolution if the us didn't turn on them and stay neutral. They said they made the alliance with the old government. The french fry wasn't created in france, and are we going to send france back the statue of liberty now.
Why they hell would you hate them just becaue they don't agree with a dumbass hick like bush. It wasn't just france, most of america don't agree with Bush's stupid propaganda either. we're the ones wrong we are attacking innocent people.
-
quote:
are we going to send france back the statue of liberty now
No, we like it too much. Forget that the French gave it to us.
This BS about renaming french fries to "freedom fries" and whatnot is just as moronic as during WWI when people renamed hamburgers to "liberty steak" and stuff.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
There's a passage in Leviticus I think (or Exodus) that says "whoever lies down with a man as he does with a woman shall surely be put to death" or something like that. You're right about the Dr. Suess business though. Actually I think his books contain more insight than the Bible and everything in it. ;) Just read "The Butter-Battle Book" for instance.
oh. well, thats another reason to disagree with religion & the bible. i have some gay friends, and in fact, am seeing a bi-girl. so fuck that. im not going to cut all ties with them because some men 1600+ years ago didnt like the idea. funny thing is, most people hate fags, but like lesbians. so i guess because lesbians are socially accepted, they get to go to heaven or some bullshit. goddamn it (hehe) i really hate people some times.
omg, i could actually see bush sending the statue of liberty back to France. lame. :D
-
Utopian, with an immediate focus on socialism as being a step in the right direction.
People should be free to express religious ideas but if they try to use them as sole justification for laws and such important issues they should be ignored.
zooloo
-
quote:
Wow, you hate an entire country of people? All of them? Even the women and children?
if they believe the bulshit the french gov does, then yes. and why would you know include 'men' w/ women and children? we are all the same, and what about all the equal rights women fought so hard for (and rightfully disearve). which reminds me about a few thing like draft registration, but lets not get into that...
quote:
A note, the US probably wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for the help they received from the French during the Revolutionary War.
and on another note, France would not exist if America and the British didn't save them from Hitler
quote:
oh yeah, i do not hate the French. and im not calling my fries "Freedom Fries". that is jut silly & immature.
if you listened to any of the media interview with the people who first proposed this "change", then you would know that they only used this to get media attention. what they wanted was a boycott of french products...btw
quote:
Have you seen the hardees or some fast food restaurant, where they call french cowards, and they surrendered every war?
read this, it's kinda funny
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14587 (http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14587)
quote:
Why they hell would you hate them just becaue they don't agree with a dumbass hick like bush
it's amazing how everyone here assumes what i think. i do not hate them b/c the disagree w/ bush, i hate them because they are stopping every effort to disarm and remove saddam--i think this is because the french have sold them weapons and do not want word to get out, but i have no facts to back this theory up
quote:
we're the ones wrong we are attacking innocent people.
Saddam is an innocent man? holy shit, what rock have you been living under?
quote:
oh. well, thats another reason to disagree with religion & the bible.
actually, i put extremely little faith in the bible. my reason: man created it, man translated it, and man probibly perverted it somewhat
quote:
funny thing is, most people hate fags, but like lesbians.
well, i'm not like most people. homosexualism, whether it be male or female, is morally wrong in my mind
quote:
omg, i could actually see bush sending the statue of liberty back to France. lame
really? i can't
-
no, the french wanted the inspections to continue
**edit-and why did we suddenly start put our efforts into saddam, what happend to osama, and north korea.
korea is the next nazi germany, but we won't help them until its too late, or bush just wants iraq because they have around 300 trillion dollars worth of oil, and we're in a 4 trillion dollar debt.
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: papercut ]
-
quote:
no, the french wanted the inspections to continue
why the hell would any sane man want to waste time/resources for the fivolous "inspections" ?!?!?! they got nothing done, and it would be impossible for them to do so--expecially when you have the inspectors telling the regime where they are going to inspect and where our 'approved' unmaned drones would fly days ahead of time
quote:
**edit-and why did we suddenly start put our efforts into saddam,
hmm, we have been dealing w/ iraq for 12 years. osama for 2 years and N korea for probibly less then a year, and you can not figure out why we are so active on the iraq subject. you MUST start keeping up with worldly events
-
quote:
Topic: Political views (not another war thread)
Sorry for getting off topic!!
-
well I guess your precious Bush Sr. should have taken care of it after only 93 days of fighting.
We attacked Iraq because they invaded kuwait for oil but Because were supposely the strongest military and no one can possibly beat us, its justified to attack Iraq.
-
many of you need to stop "putting words into my mouth" cause it's getting kinda annoying. i never said George H. W. Bush was "precious". the man was president when i was 2, i doubt i knew what a president was back then.
-
i believe 3 things:
everyone should be free
everyone should be able to believe in whatever god they choose
everyone should be able to own a pitbull.
anything else, ask my dog.
-
I belive this:
Siplus has his head so far up his own ass that he only ever see's shit.
I am not taking any side on the iraq crisis.
I am anti-gun, if i can be sure that crims dont have them, in aussieland its hard for innocent people to get guns for protection, but crims can get them easy, and I want a gun for as long as the criminals do.
Siplus: Head is up your asshole as you move along, walk around pretending that theres nothing wrong, you dont care whos getting ya rent, or about eviroment, relegion, or goverment. My cars runnin on human blood, olyimpics built on toxic mud, who said it was so clean and tidy, who plays the keyboreds in killing heidi. Now everything is, everything is, everything, everythings FUCKED. Not telling you do nothing about ya got somthing to say, dont say it shout it, used to think the worst thing was my footrot, stupid, then my heart stoped.
-
wtf
-
I believe almost every political view is good, as long as you don
-
hey man m think haha over the hill and makkeroney
-
quote:
Originally posted by Siplus: *Capitalist*:
oh really? cool. maybe the fact that i'm Catholic will prevent morons from debating with me then (http://smile.gif)
[ March 20, 2003: Message edited by: Siplus: *Capitalist* ]
i don't think so, do catholics debate with each other? if so, then you have a lot of debating with idiots ahead of you.
as for my political beliefs i have too many to mention. here are a few sites which i strongly agree with most of the contents of though:
http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/ (http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/)
http://www.snp.org/ (http://www.snp.org/)
http://www.fsfeurope.org/ (http://www.fsfeurope.org/)
http://www.polytheism.org.uk/ (http://www.polytheism.org.uk/)
and while i may not agree with the contents of this site, i agree strongly with the premise behind its existence:
http://www.freespeech.org/ (http://www.freespeech.org/)
-
I'm not really sure how you can be both a socialist and a nationalist.
-
Scottish people are patriots not nationalists. Even if they are nationalists they have every right to be, since the English invaded and are still occupying their homeland! Much like what will go on with Irag in the following months. Only in that case they will call it "liberation". ;)
-
I don't see the distinction between nationalism and patriotism. They're both as much the "opium of the masses" as religion, and equally as good a tool of leaders for coercing the populace into doing their bidding. Socialists should be above that kind of tribalism.
-
Of course there are differences between the word "nationalist" and "patriot". At least in my native language, which btw gave birth to the word patriot, the difference is huge! A socialist CAN be a patriot but he cannot be a nationalist at the same time.
-
My point is that I object to any sense of arbitrary collective identity such as nationality, so whether it's expressed through 'nationalism' or 'patriotism' I don't see one as being any less foolish than the other.
-
You seem to have something against words of similar meaning. :D No objection there. ;)
-
woah woah woah! it's a popular misconstruction that the 'Scottish Nationalist Party' are nationalists. The scottish nationalist party exist for one reason alone, and that's to get Scotland accepted as a nation state within the EU. They also do go on about a lot of other stuff, and i agree with most of it, but when it comes down to fundamentals, they start to really disagree with each other. i honestly think that when we finally get recognised as a nation state in europe, that there will be no real point in the scottish nationalist party (although they are doing a good job of being the opposition party in our devolved scottish parliament right now (scotland has its own parliament but all decisions must be okayed by england before they become law, you can see why i think scotland needs to be an independent state).
Anyway, the scottish nationalists are really badly named, since most of them, and certainly all the ones i agree with are not nationalists at all, in the true definition of the word. I am DEFINITELY not a nationalist, but i do agree with the scottish nationalist party's opinions usually, although you can't trust them all the time...
when it comes down to it, when the scottish nationalists and the scottish socialists disagree, i find myself agreeing with the socialists more to be honest.
ps: re: patriotism, i think i did go into this before but yes i am patriotic, but i think that blind patriotism is not good. I know that the scottish nationalists are not to be trusted, and i do not accept what they say without my own thoughts and criticisms coming into play. luckily, they make you think by being untrostworthy every now and again (sadly this stops them getting votes, mine included, i voted scottish socialist last time i was present for an election in scotland). patriotism and scottish nationalism are the same thing, but i think that nationalism in its more proper sense is more like elitism or perhaps racism (at a stretch) than patriotism.
[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: literally X11 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Siplus: *Capitalist*:
homosexualism, whether it be male or female, is morally wrong in my mind
So, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for her education by law?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses help?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I assume you have studied these things extensively, so I hope you can help.
Thank you for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
zooloo
[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum: literally X11:
The scottish nationalist party exist for one reason alone, and that's to get Scotland accepted as a nation state within the EU.
I'm not clear why you want Scotland accepted as a nation state?
-
because its people are totally different from the people of england. at the moment however scotland's presence in europe is pathetic. scotland has the same status as yorkshire, an outlying english county, and even within the 'united' kingdom, i suspect that yorkshire gets more consideration from the english government than scotland does.
england tries out new taxes on scotland, does all the dirty nuclear stuff (that the americans pay them to do) in scotland (the further away from london it is, the safer it must be), because they know the people of scotland don't want the english to be part of the same country, so the english just treat scotland like shit. plus the english sell scotland's oil off and spend the profits... on england! disgusting and pathetic.
not only that but the english are always saying no to things in europe when actually scotland would probably say yes (and vice versa). scotland has a voice of its own which nobody is currently listening to. scotland's voice deserves to be heard. the very fact that people cannot see the reason scotland should be independent shows that scotland needs to be able to make its voice be heard.
luxembourg has the status of a nation, belgium has it, so do the netherlands (touchy issue, possibly), so why not scotland?
-
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can say that the Scottish are "different" from the English.
I agree though that there is a danger of regions being ruled badly if their government feels indifference toward them, whether it be because their government is racist/nationalistic or simply because the seat of government is far away. But I don't see why that should be an question of nationality, it's just a pragmatic issue of granting enough autonomy to the different regions of a country.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can say that the Scottish are "different" from the English.
are you english? if so then i can see why you say that. england's economy is propped up by scotland's so it is easy to see why the english do not see the possibility of scotland becoming its own nation again (something that almost every other nation under the english heel in the time of the 'british' empire has been granted now)
quote:
I agree though that there is a danger of regions being ruled badly if their government feels indifference toward them, whether it be because their government is racist/nationalistic or simply because the seat of government is far away. But I don't see why that should be an question of nationality, it's just a pragmatic issue of granting enough autonomy to the different regions of a country.
i disagree. scotland is a different country from england. the people there are scottish, the english are english. just the same as the difference between canadians and americans, or kiwis and australians. you might as well say you think that the whole of africa should still be part of the english empire! it should not because the people there are different. the history of scotland is different from the history of england, the social culture of scotland is intrinsically different from that of england. the differences are staggering and unparralelled by any other two nations in such close proximity anywhere in the world, except possibly germany and france. or maybe iran and iraq. well you get the point.
I know, being scottish and having lived in both scotland and england, the inherent differences between the two cultures, and i know, and hope, thet the two cultures will never mould into one single one. scotland has been anglicised enough thank you very much, and now we would like the english to give us our nation back.
it is purely down to fear that scotland is not independent already. england has made scotland's sheeple afraid of autonomy, and england is afraid that if scotland becomes independent that they will be denied access within scotlands borders (which is ludicrous, all EU citizens would have free passage!), and maybe they are more justifiably afraid of scotland's oil reserves no longer being under control of westminster.
-
quote:
Originally posted by zoolooo:
So, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for her education by law?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses help?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I assume you have studied these things extensively, so I hope you can help.
Thank you for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
zooloo
[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]
LOL! Isn't that a letter someone sent Dr. Laura?
-
I really couldn't care less whether Scotland becomes independent or not. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I don't care if the UK is sold to France tomorrow and we all become French, if they'd make a good job of running things. And, no, I don't understand how Americans and Canadians are different, or how you can assign generalised characteristics to the population of a country.
Could you elaborate on the culture difference argument?
-
look. here's a tiny example of the difference between english people and scottish people.
you have put 'uk' as your location. to me this proves 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are english. no scottish person would put 'uk'. remember this is one tiny example. there are thousands upon thousands of tiny examples such as this one which go to make up a cultural difference huge enough to warrant scotland and england being seperate, equally weighted european states. scotland's voice and england's voice should be heard as seperate voices because they would often say different things if they were given a chance to.
i have nothing against the english people, but i do dispute the english government's inability to let go of scotland when it has let go of india, rhodesia, hong kong, most of the now united states, and many other countries and territories. I would even be happy if scotland were given commonwealth status like australia and canada, where they are independent nations who still theoretically come under the jurisdiction of the english queen (actually i would not be happy with that but it would be a damn site better than what we have now!)
but i find it difficult to elaborate any more than that about the differences and really i don't think you will see my point if you would not mind the french running england, because france and england have very different national personalities, and if you don't mind the cultural melting that that would involve, then i don't think you will see anything wrong with scotland's subjugation however i express my views.
also, every absolute is just asking to be challenged and found wanting. i am already kicking myself about saying no scot would say they were from the uk, there's an exception to every rule, and who knows, maybe you are that scot!
but anyway, that's the gist. i didn't mean different in a racist kind of a way, more in a culturally unique kind of way.
-
Well I do happen to be English, but as I've said that means nothing to me. When I put UK in my profile I'm just indicating my geographical location. But that's not really an innate difference between the cultures. And I really still don't understand what exactly you mean by culture, or how, for example, the French government ruling our country would have any effect whatsoever on the average citizen's day to day life.
The cultural characteristics of a society aren't determined by the body that governs them. I fail to see how a Scot's life would culturally be any different under a Scottish government.
-
The use of UK is more from habit. If in offical forms we state natioality as English it is always corrected [sic] to British.
If there are cultural differences between peoples how/why do you decide where to draw the line on the map?
If you want an independent Scotland, what about Kent, Mercia, Anglia, etc?
I have sympathy with the objection to English dominance but I am not comfortable with breaking up in to smaller parochial states.
Indeed the sooner we think of ourselves as citizens of the world the better. How ever well intended, nationalism is divisive and poisonous. (Patriotism is nationalism in polite company.)
For what it's worth my paternal line is from Aberdeen.
zooloo
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
But that's not really an innate difference between the cultures.
i said it wasn't didn't i? that is one of thousands of little differences that go to make up a different culture! that's what a culture is! while it may make no difference to you whether you are english and you put UK as your location, does not matter, the truth is that very few, if any scottish people would feel that way, so in this way, you are more english than they are, and they are more scottish than you, that's just the way it goes. quote:
And I really still don't understand what exactly you mean by culture, or how, for example, the French government ruling our country would have any effect whatsoever on the average citizen's day to day life.
i knew you wouldn't. it's just a matter of the fact that you and i have different perspectives and different priorities, that in itself could be a cultural difference for all i know, but in my opinion the english and french are very culturally different in a lot of ways, so if the french started running england, they would administrate it in a totally different way from how the english have been doing it, and a lot of english people would make a lot of fuss about it i think, not that that's relevant.
quote:
The cultural characteristics of a society aren't determined by the body that governs them. I fail to see how a Scot's life would culturally be any different under a Scottish government.
the english government is repressive, whether it tries to be or not. if the government of one culture rules the people of another culture, it will result in oppression and resentment however well the oppressors think they are managing it. every country in the british empire felt this resentment towards england, whether the english knew about it or not, and the reason is pure and simple: england ran all those countries as if they were all carbon copies of england. they still run scotland this way. it might work functionally but it goes against people's cultural grains. the english ran india like a hot england with elephants, they ran australia like a huge hot england with lots of dangerous wildlife, and some black people who they conveniently classed as non-humans for the purpose of making their english laws apply more easily to the new environment, and not having to acknowledge the existing laws in australia.
this is destructive and oppressive, and all they have done is treat everywhere like it is england! is that all? yes, that's all and it has caused massive negativity for generations. many aboriginal people do not know the whereabouts of their families, or live in squalour because of the english invasion of australia, the simple problem is that aboriginal australians often cannot integrate into an english society as well as the descendants of the english settlers can, for cultural reasons. the problem is not so bad in scotland where we have had longer to integrate, we were not so different in the first place, and we have had a few hundred years to watch how the english have grown into such a unified nation, and get used to the psychology behind it, but it's still cultural mismanagement in my opinion.
i know we have reached an impasse, so i won't go on.
and zooloo, currently scotland can become independent from england legally if a political party wants to give it independence, but only if that political party has a clear 50% majority of westminster seats in scotland, in real terms this means that in a UK general election, 36 seats must be won by a party in scotland, and then that party can successfully move for independence. currently labour are the only ones who have this majority, english labour that is, the ones with the english red rose as their logo. the scottish nationalists are the only party who promise that if they get 36 seats, then scotland will become independent within the year. currently they have about 3 or 4 because no bugger trusts them, but i think they have a large enough share of the votes that they should have about 12 seats. for those of you not familiar with our medieval voting system here in the 'united' kingdom, the more spread out a party's voters are, the less seats that party wins pervote, basically, enabling bigger parties, who have strong support in particular geographical areas to maintain an unjustified dominance in parliament.
as for being 'british' being a matter of convenience, to me it is a matter of insult. i put scottish on my passport application and they still give me a british passport. had i been french, my passport would say so, but i am anonymised due to my colonial status.
as for places such as wales, cornwall et c getting their independence, if they want it, they should try and get a legal mandate for it. as it stands they will not be able to go independent unless their populations believe this is best. with areas like cornwall and wales, i have doubts that this would ever be the case, but should it turn out that it is the case, good luck to them i say.
it's something to think about though that virtually every part of 'britain' wants to get independence from england.
[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: crusader for justice & peace ]
-
I'm sorry but this all seems completely vague to me. Can you give me one example of a way in which having an English government rather than a Scottish one is harming you? Or rather any benefit you would see from independence? I'm looking for cultural as opposed to economic benefits. It's just that I frequently hear this "culture" argument from people when they're talking about the independence of their nation and I've yet to hear one single concrete example of what the hell it is they're talking about.
-
well again, it's a whole slew of little things that really add up. i will give one example, but it will seem petty to you i am sure, remember this is just one small thing amongst an ocean of small things that make up a bigger picture:
in england, if you conduct a survey, the majority of people will say they thing water should be metered, ie that water should be paid for by the ounce (or gallon, whatever), in scotland if you conduct a survey of the same nature, you will find that 93% of people believe water should be paid for on a flat rate basis, ie everybody gets water, everybody pays the same. it is an intrinsic difference in the way each nation thinks. i have heard it said that in england there is no longer any class system. bullshit. i live here. there is one. the english people (in the south anyway) love to perpetuate the class structure, if only in their minds. it's what made britain great to them. in scotland there is no class structure. perhaps that is hard to believe, but it is true. some scots are risher than others, some are more stuck up, but deep down, none of them thinks they are any "better" than any other person (well, my earlier disclaimer about absolute statements comes into play here, but you see what i am getting at).
sorry, i have gone vague again. i am not the best person to talk about this as i don't really want to open up a can of worms.
-
Calum,
You are not being fair. You are not describing the English.
You describe, accurately, the Home Counties.
I am one of them, I recognise myself in what you say. That is why I am certain the rest of Britain isn't like that.
Scotland vs England is a ploy. It is divide and rule. It works rather well to keep you fighting amounst yourselves and ignore the real enemy/problem.
The characteristics of a ruling class is not especially English. (NB "a" not "the")
zooloo (http://smile.gif)
-
i'm sorry for interrupting your eng vs scott debate, but i can't let this go...
quote:
So, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for her education by law?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses help?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I assume you have studied these things extensively, so I hope you can help.
Thank you for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
hmm...i forget which thread i mentioned this in...
i don't hold any faith in the bible. i trust nothing in it because it is made and translated by humans, thus not making it "God's eternal and unchanging word". and gees zooloo, use some common sence!! this is one thing i hate about stupid people, you DO NOT THINK FOR YOURSELVES!
-
Siplus: *Capitalist*,
I see, then why is homosexuality morally wrong?
How do you know, or perhaps this is thinking for yourself. Did you make it up?
zooloo
[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by zoolooo:
Calum,
You are not being fair. You are not describing the English.
You describe, accurately, the Home Counties.
I am one of them, I recognise myself in what you say. That is why I am certain the rest of Britain isn't like that.
Scotland vs England is a ploy. It is divide and rule. It works rather well to keep you fighting amounst yourselves and ignore the real enemy/problem.
The characteristics of a ruling class is not especially English. (NB "a" not "the")
zooloo (http://smile.gif)
i agree with you, but you miss my point. the point is, if the english have a majority one way, and the scots have a majority the other way (in anything, not just how to charge for water), and they are both ruled by the same government, then one group must put up with having whatever the other group voted for. surprise, surprise, there are twelve times as many people in england as in scotland (for reasons i won't go into) so england gets its way in these matters, scotland gets told (symbolically) that its views don't matter and the english get what they want again, and they don't even realise that scotland wanted anything different, much less care.
one intrinsic difference between the english and the scottish is that the english don't think it's a big deal and the scottish do. i say, if it's no big deal to england, then just let scotland go, and everybody's happy, except england no longer gets to sell scotland's oil to the USA.
i agree that the england vs scotland thing is manufactured, but you know what? when i hear english people saying that, i get the impression they think the scots manufactured it. from what i have seen, english people keep this "rivalry" going a lot more than scots do. i have rarely met any scots who have anything against the english people but i have met many english people who make anti-scottish remarks, usually concealed behind a witty smirk, the gesture that english people use to make whatever thing they say come out as a "joke" so that it's "okay" to say it in the first place.
in international football tournaments, it's not scotland's supporters who start fights and beat up the other supporters, on holiday in europe, it's not the scottish who hang around exclusively with english speakers, and will not associate with the locals.
you will have to go a long way to convince me that there is not an intrinsic difference between the scottish and the english. our heritages are just too different.
two more small points,
have a look at the english national anthem (http://www.blakeneymanor.com/king.html), specifically verse six. that's the truth behind the smirk.
also, those "home" counties you mentioned are only home to the ruling classes whom you also mentioned. what piousness causes them to call them the "home" counties? I am much more at home in Edinburgh or Orkney, about 700 and 1000 miles away from the 'home' counties, respectively.
PS, i also am interested in why homosexuality is morally wrong, since many friends of mine are homosexuals, and i am sure would be interested to know what's so morally wrong with them, but sadly i suspect that siplus will not be able to improve on zombie90210's pathetic attempts in the past to justify this ludicrous sentiment.
[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: crusader for justice & peace ]
-
You have me pinned Calum.
Anything I say you will counter because I am that Englishman you speak of.
It is true we think we are God's own - in principle and in practice.
You have a very effective argument against the English, although I don't think it's any more than just that.
Yes, I know my thinking that is proving your point - an extremely effective argument against the English indeed.
Thanks anyway, I enjoyed that.
zooloo
PS I can't remember who asked, but yes, the gay letter thing is the Dr Laura [?] letter and it's rather good isn't it.
[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]
-
no no no, i am sorry if i seem like a ranting racist, people are people and everybody's different. whether a person is english or scottish or maori or canadian or swedish et c makes no difference to their personality, i just think that the combination of living in a particular place with a particular culture makes the people in one area a little different from the people in another area.
i am not english, and unfortunately that grates a bit against people who are english, and probably vice versa, but there's nothing really wrong or right in it all, unless you want to get down to specifics about it. you could equally well point out that 'Flower o' Scotland' (Scotland's e facto national anthem) was just as racist against the english (it is, check it out (http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/songs/flower.html)) and not only that, it moans on about how downtrodden the scots are and how it's so unfair, to me that's worse than the english national anthem, which is a bit more positive (if racist and violent) and wasn't even written by the english! in many ways i am almost as ashamed to be scottish as i am to be british! of course, i endorse the real scottish national anthem, Scotland the brave (http://www.contemplator.com/folk/scotland.html), because i think it rises above the bickering that i dislike so much, sadly many scots prefer flower o' scotland.
anyway, what i am saying is, i'm not trying to paint the english into a corner. being english or scottish doesn't in itself say anything about you except where you come from, it's what you do with it (and whose country your government is oppressing) that counts.
-
Here's a much better anthem. (http://www.merseyworld.com/imagine/lyrics/imagine.htm)
-
Calum I am agreeing with you.
What I intended to say was that when framing my reply to you I became very aware of the "Englishness" inherent.
That makes it impossible to reply because "I would say that wouldn't I". This isn't knocking you, it's admitting the reality behind your opinions.
zooloo
BTW - It would be fun to learn the second verse of the National Anthem and start singing it when the first stops... maybe all 6 for the right occasion, :D
-
you'll get the chance at the next remembrance day. remembrance day services (and possibly some other special church services) customarily include the english national anthem. this is true even in the church of scotland (ironically in my opinion). Last time i was in church (many many years ago!) and this hymn (yes, god save the king is in the church of scotland hymnary!) i could not do it. They sang three verses, but strangely only five were actually printed in the book... i wonder why.
flap i agree, that's a good anthem, maybe for the united states.
-
red-black anarcho-elitist (odd combination I know)
(btw the red black refers to socialist (red) anarchism (black))
basically most people are too stupid to vote and I believe someone must have appreciable benefit (demonstratable knowledge about the Australian political process / years in public service / emergency services and/or income BELOW a certain level) to society to choose how it is run. Also politicians should have their money and assets stripped before entering office which are then replaced with a *reasonable* bank account level to rebuy a flat or something. Then their wage is set to the minimum legal wage. (According to Johnny it's enough for McDonalds workers so it should be enough for him too.) Politicians bank accounts and assets are publicly monitored and any "discrepancies" must be explained. Voting is compulsory for those who qualify and confidential. Voting is also real time. Party advertising is confined to a set level of money related to popularity. All wages have an hourly cap and an hourly minimum.
Oh and Im a heterodox christian - I believe in Jesus, I believe in God (not possibly a big dude with beard or BDWB model,) I dont take the bible as gospel (thats what you get when people manipulate a religious text into their own political agendas but hey...)
Mainly anything that leaves me outside of societies influence is good. Oh yeah liberalism as opposed to democracy in stalemates.
-
i agree with a lot of what you said! good ideas!
what politician would ever legislate that into practice though? and wouldn't politicians just vote that situation out when they got in power? who administrates the administrators?
one thing i found very funny - you don't take the bible as gospel? what is it then? do you take the gospels as gospel? ;)